Originally Posted by Helmet Head
That's right, which is why,
technically, 21208, does not violate the rights of cyclists.
However, I would like to see that challenged, because I believe, in practice, it does.
Consider
the following scenario presented by John Forester on rec.bicycles.soc in 1994:
Oh the old "I didn't see the cyclist" defense commonly used by all motorists... And how would that cyclist be "protected" if the motorist claimed the same defense when the cyclists was on the right side of the motorist in a WOL and swerved to avoid a pot hole...
Com'on you can make all kinds of outlandish scenerios where the motorists attorneys if the cyclist is not able to defend themselves... such as the lawyer/professor in Dallas: "the sun was in my eyes" or the northern Cal woman who claimed the experienced female rider "crossed the line." Neither one of these involved Bike Lanes.
Shall I go on?
Speaking of second class... in this auto-centric society, cyclists don't have a chance... look at the accident case histories in Forester's book... it has not gotten any better.